The question before the human race
is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious
miracles.

John Adams

AMERICA FIRST is the Tradition of the Nation

America
First is Populism in action

Most people associate the term America First with foreign policy. While the implication speaks loudly for a pro national
stand, most ignore the tradition that Populism is at the core of the movement. In order to understand the heritage, one should
examine the most overt aspects of this tradition. Professor Ralph Raico, states the case for an American First foreign
policy in his book - The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars. He refers to the following motto used by Richard Cobden, the libertarian theorist of international relations:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is — in extending our commercial relations
— to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

While the sordid history of mindless interventionism is widely available, most detractors want to rely upon the canard
that isolationism from world affairs is the goal for advocates of the America First philosophy. How insincere, such a reproach
is and disingenuous are these critics. Clearly those who accept the wisdom of Washington and Adams, understand that it applies
today and has the same validity as when the nation embarked on its unique journey in self governance.

So what is the nature of the fear within the internationalist camp, that requires them to deny our own history, distort
the facts and often falsify the significance about our heritage? Their dread stems from an aversion toward LIBERTY, especially when it is practiced by individuals of integrity. The populist movement of the late nineteenth century had a
strong alignment with rural interests. If Thomas Jefferson championed the populace, William Jennings Bryan spoke for the populist.
When Alexander Hamilton advanced the elites, Woodrow Wilson served the masters of internationalism. This conflict in mindset
and orientation is at the core of the uninterrupted political struggle.

The domestic character in the America First movement, is largely unsung because the shapers of the political culture have
gone to great lengths to dispel the meaning of individual sovereignty. Populism is the embodiment of rightful authority. Legitimacy
of political institutions rests in the consent of citizens, and has as its only purpose, the benefit and advancement of their
interests. Elites and their minions need not apply for positions of privilege. Special treatment, corporate domination and
coercive compliance all promote cronyism of the few, over the prosperity of the many. While the control and creation of money
was fraudulently expropriated through the Federal Reserve swindle, the convergence of people control was extended with the
perpetual war for global domination strategy.

For the underlying objective in all internationalism policy is not just the expansion of an empire, but ultimately is the
enslavement of each individual. Individual Liberty is the preeminent archenemy of the mattoid elite. Populism represents the pro active political underpinnings that recognizes that the Statist is the supreme enemy of
the Republic. Those who lust after power for no other reason than to enrich and protect their own narrow appetites, are the
unfeigned problem. The reason that the people must be shielded from the common sense of Populism, is reducible to the fear
that elites have, that the regular folk will wake up to the fraud of the two party, one NWO voice, political system.

America First is the sensible and honest alternative to the continuous failures of the last century. The reason is simple.
More of your friends, neighbors and family would become empowered to attain the fruits of the national dream, when they are
able to live their lives as free and responsible citizens. Yes, an America First mindset, invokes obligations. But our mutual
duty is directed towards people, not government. Only individuals possess rights. The State exists to serve the real master
of government; namely the people.

Don’t be confused that genuine Populism promotes any form of “collectivism”. The emphasis is always on
what will enhance the interests of the individual. Society never has the authority to claim they can establish subjugation
for the ‘common good’. The test of validity for domestic policies will accept the standard that government must
be controlled and not be the controller. That is why the definition within the name of America First is so appropriate.

The point that the government is NOT the nation, has been made repeatedly. It is time to put that theme into practice.
The Corporate/State axis is the evil twin. The solution is restoring a real free enterprise economy and scale back and severely
limit the role of central government. That is the goal for Populism. It is the American tradition and it deserves to be put
FIRST, whenever public policy is considered.

So when you hear the smears against the only sane and prudent course, ask who benefits from those cat calls and who profits
from that policy? The Republic is now dead with the enactment of the Patriot Act and now the Homeland Defense Act. Nothing
illustrates more animus towards the prospects of freedom than these domestic draconian dictates of the elites. Populism is
the political answer, American First is the correct policy, and Liberty is its eternal reward. Laugh in the face of the toadies
for the elites. Virtuous and honest citizens know better. America First is your legacy! Can you count yourself among
their ranks? Will you defend it or will you continue to pay trubute to the illicit betrayers of our Constitutional Republic?

An informed people is the basis
of, and a necessity for, successful democratic government. The people of the United States are entitled to hear all sides
to a question whether it be political, economic, social, racial or religious.

— Burton K. Wheeler

Bush the Next FDR?

"My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years -- 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime --
to the service of your neighbors and your nation."

"We will be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand
by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten
us with the world's most destructive weapons."

These words seem to project calls to action that many will accept as being reasonable. But what exactly are the methods
and consequences for following such goals?

The USA Freedom Corps! What exactly is: "extending American compassion throughout the world."?
It sure rings like nation building, doesn't it? When Bush seeks to expand the AmeriCorps, Senior Corps and the Peace Corps
it sure sounds like the Civilian Conservation Corps of FDR. Just what does 'voluntarism' mean for George Jr?

Does our duty as a citizen extend to service to the State or to our neighbor and community? Those who confuse legitimate
charity for worthy causes with service in government programs, enter a very dangerous arena. If the claim for national service
rests upon a moral duty, where is the evidence that any national government has ever fulfilled their
duty to American citizens?

We are living in a shadow vestige of what this nation once was. Government was about serving and protecting her people.
Now the call is to serve the apparatus that serves itself, at the expense of the citizen. How fine it would be if social service
organizations would be benign government programs, but the horrible record of State agendas destroys the noble purpose of
volunteer compassion.

Have we lost all proportion when it comes to the miserable record of bureaucratic programs? If President Bush purports
to be a Republican, why expand Socialism? We cannot accept hideous schemes in the spirit of bipartisanship. The correct role
for government has been abandoned for over a century. Now we see emerging the West Texas version of Hyde Park.

The long fight to abolish the draft, may well need to be fought again. This time, the idea expands to a post graduate course
in state service for our youth. The task of indoctrination wasn't completed in the government schools, so on the job
training becomes necessary. This is not the kind of public service that bears healthy fruits. And who among us cannot see
the seeds planted for voluntary blending into a disguised form of compulsory?

Couple this domestic twist with the approach of the War Party for security, and we must wonder just who is being protected.
It sure smells like preemptive strikes are on the horizon. In the fine tradition of the Israeli air strike against the Iraq's
nuclear facility in 1981, we are being prepared for more tortured justification in international law. Preventive aggression
without declaring war is an insult to any nation that holds itself out as the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world.
If this 'axis of evil' is so diabolical, and must be confronted, do it legally and get Congress to declare war!

One need not defend a deviant tyrannical regime to implore their own country to observe constitutional requirements. The
current course in interventionist rule, guarantees perpetual warfare. Attempts to validate arrogance of power as legitimate
under the ruse of self defense, stretches common sense to unnatural limits. Bush views this quest as a fight against pure
evil. Crusades without prudence end in carnage. If the goal is to protect America, how is this country served when three new
enemies are being programmed into the GPS targeting system, when their abilities to strike our shores are limited to cells
of fanatics?

Are Americans so bewildered that such unilateral assaults will have more in common with the desperation of imperial Japan,
when they launched their attack on Pearl Harbor, than a holy cause for saving the world? If the weapons of mass destruction
are ready to be used, does it make sense to initiate a doomsday scenario, when Red China may well side with her Asian cousins?
It is one thing to correct inadequacies in political objectives after the Gulf War, with attempts to defuse the aggression
of Saddam Hussein. But what exactly has been achieved with over ten years of flyover confrontations, while we still buy his
oil? Real grass root dissent exists in Iran, so why is Bush so willing to regenerate national solidarity against that satan
infidel?

No folks, this is a very dangerous policy to pursue. If the political elites are allowed to galvanize their 'policeman
of the world' strategy, America will act like a thug. Real and justifiable retaliation for active aggression from terrorist
states deserves an effective response. But adopting unilateral preemptive raids, which virtually guarantees lethal reprisals,
does not increase protection for our country.

Is Bush just preparing the American public for the aftermath of this war on terror when he calls for the USA Freedom Corps?
Is this the first step back to conscription or is it going to be expanded into a FEMA disaster response backup of the home
guard?

When Americans endorsed the Socialism of FDR, they bought into the deception of equating civic moral duty
with government service. Linkage between these two vastly different approaches, has caused more damage to the American Nation
than any terrorist plot. Bush has revealed his zeal for militant incursion, in defense of the New World Order. His father
popularized the acceptability of what was once a shadow theory. Bush II is now taking the reality of the NWO and equating
it with the defense of America. Buying into this prevarication would make Franklin Delanor Roosevelt proud.

"It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the government itself, treating the task as we would treat
the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate
and reorganize the use of our national resources."

It seems that Bush has an updated rendition of the same message. Not exactly the Republican vision that the State serves
the people. WWII changed America for the worst. We risk a WWIII that will destroy it forever . . .

SARTRE - January 31, 2002

The death of democracy is not
likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. Robert
M. Hutchins